Sword vs. Spear

Khorak - I tend to agree with the others on this. I think that the perceptions people have of spears as second-rate weapons is borne out of hollywood, but also the fact that spears are cheap weapons. Therefore you can equip many men, with limited training with a spear and shield for not much. Therefore, on a lot of battlefields (medieval period i'm thinking) your spear armed troops are also your worst-trained troops, with the least motivation - and the only way to make them half effective is to give them some drilling in formation fighting. However, your sword-armed troops are generally your wealthy, armoured elite, who have been trained in using it effectively since an early age.

John Clements is one of the world's leading authorities on use of medieval weaponry. This is what he has to say on long-sword vs. pole arm combat in his book 'Medieval swordsmanship' :-

'the 'fight' of the pole-arm against the single sword is very probably the most challenging that any swordsman can face. Even in the hands of a novice such weapons can have tremendous advantage in reach and can be very quick.' and '....the brutal speed of a pole-arms thrust and its formidable ability to feint and disengage are often under-estimated'.

He gives various techniques for engaging the spear, grapples etc... - but a large slice of what it comes down to at the end of the day with any weapon is the skill of person wielding it vs the person opposing it. Two opponents, one sword-armed, one spear armed, equal ability, room to manouver, i'm going with the spear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

But while the kendo people weren't trianed in fighting spearfighters, the opposite is true as well. They wouldn't be trained in deflecting a swordstrike that is feinted. So both parties would fight an opponent they wouldn't know how to fight really . . .

---

No, because actual warriors were trained to fight against various types of weapons. An actual spearman would've been trained to fight against swordsmen, and vice versa. Unskilled vs. unskilled is not the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

That spearfighting requires less skill than swordfighting only adds to the argument that spears are better/equal to swords.

---

You neglect the possibility that while an unskilled spearman might be able to beat an unskilled swordsman every time, a skilled swordsman might be able to beat a skilled spearman handily. I'm not saying that this is the case, but it seems possible to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

Since you actually wear a metal helmet with good padding in kendo, does indicate that those spearshafts can hit very hard. The difference wouldn't be that big from a real fight.

---

I'll concede that that might be possible. It seems unlikely that a helmet would provide such poor protection that you can actually be knocked out just by being hit by a stick, but I'm not what you might call an expert on the matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KyodaiSteeleye

I think that the perceptions people have of spears as second-rate weapons . . .

---

Hold on. Nobody said that spears are second-rate weapons, just different. For some uses they're clearly very effective; the question is only one-on-one battles, which hardly constitute the alpha and omega of a weapon's usefulness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KyodaiSteeleye

John Clements is one of the world's leading authorities on use of medieval weaponry. This is what he has to say on long-sword vs. pole arm combat in his book 'Medieval swordsmanship' . . .

---

I don't have the book, so—no offense—for all I know that may be taken out of context. I would be interested in hearing the opinions of people who have fought a great deal with spears against swords or vice versa, perhaps in the SCA or LARP. Watchman may have been trained in kendo, but that doesn't prepare you to fight spears, and the equipment used is also very different from ancient European equipment. Khorak says he's fought against spears, but he doesn't say how extensive and varied his experience in sword-fighting is.

I believe the SCA has martial competitions of some sort, to determine who gets to be king or something? Perhaps an SCA monarch or former monarch would be a good person to ask, as one who's clearly an expert fighter. I'm pretty sure you're allowed to use a polearm in SCA fights.

-Simetrical

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simetrical

No, because actual warriors were trained to fight against various types of weapons. An actual spearman would've been trained to fight against swordsmen, and vice versa. Unskilled vs. unskilled is not the same.

---

I think you are overrating the warriors here. Most warriors were not all that welltrained. Of course they would have trained with each other, but like it is now soldiers have a tendency to goof off when they can, even if it cuts into their ability to survive a battle. Strange huh...
But the case presented was two oponents with skills with their weapons, just not trianed skills against the particular enemy, meaning an equal standing. Both parties would have to adapt and be inventive to win, and I don't expect the spearmen to be inherently more adaptable or more inventive. But I do expect the two foes to know the limits of their weapons as well as their capabilities, thus making the fight rather acceptable to us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simetrical

You neglect the possibility that while an unskilled spearman might be able to beat an unskilled swordsman every time, a skilled swordsman might be able to beat a skilled spearman handily. I'm not saying that this is the case, but it seems possible to me.

---

Indeed he could do that. I'm not so much for spear superiority as I'm against sword superiority. I rather think that while the novices will go to the spear that the experts will end up tied.
We must remember that even individual fights were not as aggresive as we sometimes believe they were. The two warriors would mostly just sit behind their weapons or shields waiting for an opening (going at it in Hollywood style would tire out the two fighters far too fast), and the slower the fight the more I tend to believe the spearman will win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simetrical

I'll concede that that might be possible. It seems unlikely that a helmet would provide such poor protection that you can actually be knocked out just by being hit by a stick, but I'm not what you might call an expert on the matter.

---

A helmet saves your life, but it can't save you from getting dazed and confused everytime an enemy strikes you on it, nor remove any pain such a bang on the head might induce. Ever tried the childrens game of putting a metal bin over the head of one person and then bang it real hard? The poor fellow (well not so poor since they go willingly) is completely off his feet afterwards. Not a perfect example but the physics involved are much the same.

I've never even seen kendo IRL. Though I did a little bit of training with late-medieval longswords (aka "bastard swords"), based on contemporary teachings, a while back. And I've been taught to do fancy things with a staff.

By what little that's worth, and based on everything I've read and heard on the topic, I'd say there's no hard and fast "which is better" division as far as weapons go; different weapons and different ways of using them suit different people and different situations, and when two people fight their choice of weapons is largely secondary to their ability to wield them (with the ever-present caveats regarding armor).

However, it would seem to me that a spear, or similar light and agile polearm (the difference between a more sophisticated fighting-spear and a light halberd/glaive/whatever is often rather fuzzy), wielded with comparatively equivalent skill, has to be among the more difficult weapons for a swordsman to face. Unless one goes to the huge greatswords of Renaissance, approaching two meters in lenght, the advantage in reach is almost certainly on the spearman. Regardless of the sword, a well-made spear or polearm is at least its equivalent in killing power, although many of them can't chop off limbs quite nearly as well.

And everything I've been told and taught, be it by a fencing instructor, a written tratise on such subjects, or an unarmed-combat teacher, tells me the control of distance is very very important in combat.

Quite simply, if the spearman knows his stuff the swordsman is going to have some difficulty even getting his weapon into effective range. As a tactical situation this isn't overly different from facing a sword with a dagger or a rapier with a shortsword, or a rather longer-armed fellow in the boxing ring - rather uncomfortable...

May I make a suggestion ? People truly interested in the issue should, instead of debating conjecturals with only laymen's knowledge on the topic (as we all have), go ask people who actually study this sort of thing in practice. I'd guess the folks at ARMA could be helpful.

Adding another layman observation: using a spear two-handed gives you all the flexibility of a quarterstaff with the added bonus of a sharp pointy bit. Held in both hands, your swordsman opponent needs to worry about two weapons in effect, since you can attack with either end, aiming to cut/stab with one or club with the other.

plus that the spearman probably does have a 'side-arm', such as a falchion or sword that he can draw should he not have room to use his pole-arm adequately or the swordsman cut inside his spear's 'kill zone'.

Watchman - agreed, none of us are experienced with hand to hand weapons of the period, so all of what we say is opinion, some of it based on conjecture.

Its still quite fun to have those sorts of conversations though... ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khorak

You have to be a very good shot to fatally hit a dodging, armoured man who is only concerned with you when you're using a spear.

---

Yes and no, you have to be very good to kill someone in one stab yes but then killing isn’t what your aiming for in a fight

Sound odd?

Well think disable, you miss with the thrust of your spear then whip it away and crack your friendly sword wielder in the legs. Watch as he tumbles about at your feet, swing spear around and stab while on floor.

To be fair spears are a real pain to deal with but yes it can be done, the Scot Highlanders were still fighting with broadsword & buckler when we English were filling them with lead - they were very skilled at deflecting the bayonet and finishing the soldier behind it, but this was more due to the way the Redcoats fought than any failure of their weapon. After the English army changed bayonet tactics the Scots were decimated.

So I would say in battle conditions it depends on training and discipline and an understanding of your enemy - which is what the legions had in abundance and their common foes lacked.

The issue wasn't really the skill of the British troops - the rank and file of the mass armies always tended to be pretty crappily trained, but they could still roll over much more skilled enemies - but the beyonets themselves; namely, if it's the battle I'm thinking about, the Brits were still using plug bayonets.

Those are essentially knives or short swords unceremoniously plugged into the barrel by their hilt; the deficencies should be rather readily apparent. Socket bayonets, attached to the outside of the barrel by something more than just friction, were a considerable improvement.

Having watched their troopers' asses get kicked by the Scots in hand-to-hand was what prompted the British army brass to upgrade equipement to socket bayonets soon after the incident.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anti_strunt

In the real world, horsies can't (or won't) jump over spearpoints when charging the front of a phalanx...
:charge: :charge: :charge: :dizzy2:

---

yes a horse isnt a cow that will run over everything in its way
i wont trample a living creature thats also wy they call it a noble animal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

The issue wasn't really the skill of the British troops - the rank and file of the mass armies always tended to be pretty crappily trained, but they could still roll over much more skilled enemies - but the beyonets themselves; namely, if it's the battle I'm thinking about, the Brits were still using plug bayonets.

---

Yes and no. By the time of the '45 the British armies were using socket bayonets and still didn't achieve a decisive victory until Culloden, where they used the infmaous and highly debated 'strike right' tactic, although the socket bayonet was much more effective than it's predecessor.

I don't really think the highland/redcoat analogy is useful, after all even a hoplite's spear was much longer than a rifle with a bayonet, to say nothing of phalangites.

Usually horses don't charge spears. I seem to recall a tect about a polish brigade charging pikes in the late Muddle Ages, I think. But it didn't happen in the time RTW is set in.
A blade, up close and personal, against a warband is a great asset. Not so great if you are up against a phalanx. Chance are you are not going to make it to the point where you can use your blade.
It seems normal that blades can be used faster than spears. :duel: